Read my disclosure

[SKYMP3]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/skylai/photo10.jpg?t=1348544286http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/skylai/photo11.jpg?t=1348544404

Got a speeding ticket at the beginning of the year for doing 95km/hr on 70 zone. The cop reduced to 85 on 70.
I request the disclosure to see what he wrote and here you go, I don't get the whole thing understand.....

And what will be my debate point if I have to go fight it, I may or may not fight it.

Constructive replies only. thank you,

[Fuyuzora]

Translated into casual English, and switched to past tense:


I was travelling southbound on Mavis in (Lane 1?) with SKYMP3 in front of me, who stopped for a red light at Matheson. The light cycled to green, and SKYMP3 then accelerated and then continued to accelerate, pulling away from traffic - I accelerated to follow him, approximately two vehicle lengths behind him, and began to measure his pace.

At this point, SKYMP3 was not pulling away, and I was not gaining - my speedometer read 95 km/h. We passed two 70 km/h zone signs. As we approached Eglington, I activated my lights and stopped SKYMP3. I advised him of the reason for the stop; he asked "Isn't this a 80 km/h zone?".

I requested his licence & registration.

I was advised that he did not see me following him.

[-RJ3-]

IMO he has his disclosure. And it sounds like even if the speed is posted you are disobeying by going over the posted speed limit. You said you thought it was an 80 and yet you are driving 95km?

Sorry bud unless you have xcoppers to bail you out I don't think you'll win

[SKYMP3]

So he says I was speeding at 95km/hr because he kept up with me and his speedometer in his car read 95km/hr? That's only his word of mouth, no?


I know, I wasn't really want to go fight it. Ticket is only $52.
For the insurance, my record just cleared to 0 tickets on file and they still jack my insurance up last year.

[Fuyuzora]

So he says I was speeding at 95km/hr because he kept up with me and his speedometer in his car read 95km/hr? That's only his word of mouth, no?

Speedometers in law enforcement vehicles are calibrated & certified; also, I am pretty certain that "pacing" cars in order to evaluate speed in the absence of a radar/ladar gun is standard procedure for law enforcement officers, and is thus acceptable as evidence in court.

As RJ3 indicated, unless you have very strong representation (or can somehow prove the cruiser's speedometer was not calibrated at the time of the incident), you don't have much chance of winning. Taking the reduced ticket might be your best option.

[-RJ3-]

With the speed on his car it doesn't matter.
With the comments you said thought it was an 80km zone. Do you agree you said this?
If yes then going over 10 is still questionable and is tough to defend unless you are following the flow of traffic it's really tough to say.

[SKYMP3]

Alright, thanks for the fast and helpful response. I will suck my ticket then. :D
Glad that the office approved the speed of my Speed. hehehe

[Fuyuzora]

unless you are following the flow of traffic

Disclosure reads:


Continued to accelerate pulling away from traffic

So not much chance of a "just going with the flow of traffic" defence.


Alright, thanks for the fast and helpful response. I will suck my ticket then. :D
Glad that the office approved the speed of my Speed. hehehe

Fair enough! Hope your insurance doesn't ding you with too big of an increase (if any).

[-RJ3-]

Good you will accept the ticket. It will be tough to argue your case!

Good luck!

[lcianf01]

Translated into casual English, and switched to past tense:

Nice job on the translation I must say I was list when I first read it.

Sorry I have no opinion on how to fight it as I've never gotten a speeding ticket. Other than you can ask the cop to prove that his speedometer in his car was accurate and not faulty.

[SKYMP3]

Last question, my court date is in next next Fri.
If I just want to pay it, do I just send the cheque along with the ticket and skip the trial?

[zzz3]

When did you file for court date? Did you request notes to be typed? Abbreviations to be explained? Did you request calibration record for speedometer? Procedure for calibration? You should ask for all these items in your disclosure.

As for paying the ticket, you should do it on the day of your court. Before court starts and the judge enters, the prosecutor will call everyone in half an hour beforehand to let them know if officer is here; offer deals; ask if you still want to go to trial etc. You can make your decision then as he is obligated to tell you if cop is here or not. If the cop is in attendance just tell him you'll pay, if not the prosecutor will withdraw charges (all you you have to do is sit back and watch).

[SKYMP3]

^
I know, I been doing that for my past 2 tickets and 1 ticket got thrown out at the trial cos a huge mistake on ticket and one cop just didnt show up. I rejected the offer both time and went all the way to the trial.

This time, I just don't feel like going especially I have no statement of defense at all. lol

Not sure if the prosecutor will still lower the fine as the ticket is already reduced (R is stated on the ticket).

From my memories, they don't tell you if the officer is present, they will just offer you to lower your fine and less conviction pts and ask if you still want to go to trial. Who will take the offer if the prosecutor told us the cops is not here.

[zzz3]

^
I know, I been doing that for my past 2 tickets and 1 ticket got thrown out at the trial cos a huge mistake on ticket and one cop just didnt show up. I rejected the offer both time and went all the way to the trial.

This time, I just don't feel like going especially I have no statement of defense at all. lol

Not sure if the prosecutor will still lower the fine as the ticket is already reduced (R is stated on the ticket).

From my memories, they don't tell you if the officer is present, they will just offer you to lower your fine and less conviction pts and ask if you still want to go to trial. Who will take the offer if the prosecutor told us the cops is not here.

they will tell you if the officer is there - that is what i have witnessed in the 3 instances that i have been at traffic court. if they don't and you dont see any sign of the officer (the officer has to check in with the prosecutor), or any indications from the prosecutor that he or she is or isnt coming, you can always go to trial and change your mind when facing the judge if the officer shows.

[js593]

As soon as i seen the price of the ticket, I'm sorry, i bursted out laughing. 52$ for a 25 over speeding ticket here is about 450$ and upwards depending on how you were driving, and previous offenses. I suggest just paying the ticket, and going on your way. This unfortunately looks like your 100% at fault for this. Best of luck if you try to fight it.

[zzz3]

As soon as i seen the price of the ticket, I'm sorry, i bursted out laughing. 52$ for a 25 over speeding ticket here is about 450$ and upwards depending on how you were driving, and previous offenses. I suggest just paying the ticket, and going on your way. This unfortunately looks like your 100% at fault for this. Best of luck if you try to fight it.

in ontario, being convicted of a moving violation, no matter how large or small, can have significant financial repercussions with regards to premiums. the set fine, demerit points etc. are all irrelevant.

[leungalv]

Did I write the disclosure request for you Phil? If so, I should have requested everything pertinent to the ticket including when the speed gun was calibrated etc. If I didn't write, that's what they should have included.

In any case ... IF you intend to show up at court, you can ask the following:

1. Ask the Crown if their witness is present ... if not, say that you'll be making a motion to have the charges withdrawn
2. If present, see if you can enter a plea of guilty in exchange for a reduced fine.

[js593]

in ontario, being convicted of a moving violation, no matter how large or small, can have significant financial repercussions with regards to premiums. the set fine, demerit points etc. are all irrelevant.

How much is it? I'm not familiar with the Ontario section, but in MB, minimum fines are anywhere from 200-400, + demerits which are now attached to your registration, which can make the cost of insurance skyrocket... One year, my buddy (92 civic) re-registered his vehicle, had to pay 3500$ for the year on insurance, and about 700 on his license.... This was just ONE year of convictions (4 convictions i think?)

[m_bisson]

"pacing" cars in order to evaluate speed in the absence of a radar/ladar gun is standard procedure for law enforcement officers,



This.

[MarkWB]

1) The officer contradicted his own evidence by issuing you a ticket for an offense you did not commit. You were doing 25 over, not 15, so you are wrongfully charged. Obviously, this is to be taken with a grain of salt, but the courts don't like cops giving people breaks before court, so you may see the judge throw it out to teach the cop a lesson.

2) He has no evidence, everything is his word against yours. "Pacing" cars is a great procedure, but it's still just words. You could present evidence of/to the contrary that his vehicle was "2 cars behind you" (according to him) yet he claims you were both doing the same speed (95 km/hr).

3) "I" is inappropriate for note taking. He's supposed to use "writer" and by the way, what time did this happen? What day? Because the officers notes don't seem to be tied to this offence by those items...I don't see that anywhere in his notes.

Go to the pros and present these arguments and make it seem like you're considering a trial, you'll get offered a ticket listed just "speeding" or "speeding 5 km/hr over the limit" with no points and probably 90 days to pay your 50 dollar fine.

[greaves82]

As a recent police foundations student, I am not going to say much as some people think they know everything about the traffic laws and I am not going to argue with anyone.

After reading the disclosure I would suggest either just paying the fine and moving on or going to court and taking a crack at the trial and see what the out come is. Worest thing is they side with the police officer and you still have to pay the fine

[Ozil]

did you not realize the cop was behind you??

[SKYMP3]

As a recent police foundations student, I am not going to say much as some people think they know everything about the traffic laws and I am not going to argue with anyone.

After reading the disclosure I would suggest either just paying the fine and moving on or going to court and taking a crack at the trial and see what the out come is. Worest thing is they side with the police officer and you still have to pay the fine


Like I said previously, I'm ready to just pay the fine. I'm not arguing with my ticket or anything.



did you not realize the cop was behind you??

No, it was at night. Only see it once he flashed and obviously it's too late.
Like I will go speeding in front of a police car in purpose?

[MarkWB]

going to court and taking a crack at the trial and see what the out come is. Worest thing is they side with the police officer and you still have to pay the fine

Go for this option lol pleading guilty isn't going to get you any sort of "break." As a police foundations student, I'm sure you know the importance of my third point, and if I was OP, I'd for sure be bringing that up at my trial (or at least to the prosecutor since they'll offer you a deal before you even finish half your story). Good luck!

[m_bisson]

1) The officer contradicted his own evidence by issuing you a ticket for an offense you did not commit. You were doing 25 over, not 15, so you are wrongfully charged. Obviously, this is to be taken with a grain of salt, but the courts don't like cops giving people breaks before court, so you may see the judge throw it out to teach the cop a lesson.

2) He has no evidence, everything is his word against yours. "Pacing" cars is a great procedure, but it's still just words. You could present evidence of/to the contrary that his vehicle was "2 cars behind you" (according to him) yet he claims you were both doing the same speed (95 km/hr).

3) "I" is inappropriate for note taking. He's supposed to use "writer" and by the way, what time did this happen? What day? Because the officers notes don't seem to be tied to this offence by those items...I don't see that anywhere in his notes.

Go to the pros and present these arguments and make it seem like you're considering a trial, you'll get offered a ticket listed just "speeding" or "speeding 5 km/hr over the limit" with no points and probably 90 days to pay your 50 dollar fine.


1. Wrong. Some police services, like Brantford for example, are asked by the Crown to issue careless driving tickets for almost all offences so that they can be pled down in court, guaranteeing a conviction. Slimy way of administering justice, but whatever. The point is, the courts are not all the same, and every judge may have their own preference as to officer conduct.
2. Pacing is acceptable. End of story. The 'his word against yours' argument does not work. Police officers are held to much higher standards of morality and integrity than the civilian population. The hiring process is designed to eliminate people looking to abuse power and cause trouble. Yes, there are some bad cops out there, but they are dealt with and don't linger around like they did in the old days before mass media.
3. I is fine for note taking. Each police service can set their own standards for note taking. Some prefer that for every line where the writing doesn't reach the edge of the page you have to draw a line and initial, others insist that last names are always CAPITALIZED with First Names written normally.


And since you guys are waving your credentials around in the air like big e-peens, I took police foundations and have a degree in Criminology.

[MarkWB]

1. Wrong. Some police services, like Brantford for example, are asked by the Crown to issue careless driving tickets for almost all offences so that they can be pled down in court, guaranteeing a conviction. Slimy way of administering justice, but whatever. The point is, the courts are not all the same, and every judge may have their own preference as to officer conduct.
2. Pacing is acceptable. End of story. The 'his word against yours' argument does not work. Police officers are held to much higher standards of morality and integrity than the civilian population. The hiring process is designed to eliminate people looking to abuse power and cause trouble. Yes, there are some bad cops out there, but they are dealt with and don't linger around like they did in the old days before mass media.
3. I is fine for note taking. Each police service can set their own standards for note taking. Some prefer that for every line where the writing doesn't reach the edge of the page you have to draw a line and initial, others insist that last names are always CAPITALIZED with First Names written normally.


And since you guys are waving your credentials around in the air like big e-peens, I took police foundations and have a degree in Criminology.

I never waved mine lol but anyway, my point about the notes is more about the fact that the officer did not note the time or date on each page, which can actually be considered an issue with the evidence. The writer thing is trivial, but for the record, that's a general note taking rule, not just for police. Also, I'm not trying to say my first two points are definitive defenses, but the thing is, when you present your case, if you can make the officer look incompetent (improper notes and incorrectly issued ticket) and under equipped (no radar, no dashcam, no DVcam footage) you can put the pressure on the prosecution to offer a better deal. Going in there essentially hoping for mercy/the best is ineffective, plain and simple, and if these defenses even got past a prosecutor to a judge I can just picture him/her rolling their eyes like a kindergarten teacher and settling the case before they waste thousands of dollars so you and a mid-30s traffic court prosecutor can argue about minor details.

Make it seem like you're gonna' be a pain in their ass, and they'll offer you a good deal. I've seen it happen to me, I've seen it happen to people I've appeared in court against, and I've seen it happen to my friends lol Richmond Hill court, Newmarket court, Brampton court, Scarborough court, Downtown/Old City Hall court all operate in a similar fashion. It's a flipping speeding ticket and they don't have the budget to go to trial with every single ******* who doesn't want to pay, and anyone who legitimately works in the legal system knows this like they know their face in the mirror lol

[SKYMP3]

By the way, the time was written, not sure if I can read the date anywhere, I didn't includes the stuff at the bottom of the page because my info and the officer's info is written there as well.

It's in Mississauga court.

[m_bisson]

The date is usually only written once at the start of a shift, and again at midnight if it's a night shift. So you won't see it. The time only needs to be written once and as long as it's close to the time that you were pulled over there's no problem with it.

[SKYMP3]

Let's say if I m take the ticket to the trial and I lost, will the judge bring back my Reduced ticket to original fine? Will I be responsible for the court fee too, hearing so many stories from everyone. I'm confused.

[m_bisson]

No lol. You only pay what's on the ticket.

[leungalv]

No lol. You only pay what's on the ticket.


Let's say if I m take the ticket to the trial and I lost, will the judge bring back my Reduced ticket to original fine? Will I be responsible for the court fee too, hearing so many stories from everyone. I'm confused.

I think it's all there on the ticket under total payable. I believe there's a $5 court fee and a victim surcharge. When you texted me last night my mind was in Michigan mode where they usually add the court cost on after conviction.

So the JP will tell you the total amount you owe if you're convicted, you'll be likely presenting the case in front of a justice of the peace. Very seldomly will you have a judge sitting on the bench for traffic court. Keep in mind, you should address them as "your worship" if they are a JP. You'll be able to tell, JP's wear a green sash, whereas judges wear a red sash. If it is a judge, address as "your honour".

[SKYMP3]

Thanks for the tips.
Trial is tomorrow, not sure if I want to bring it to the trial or just take whatever offer and get done with.
With my flight few hours after the trial, i'm in vacation mode already.

Thanks for replying my late sms last night, I realised you could be in US and world cost extra to reply.

[SKYMP3]

My cops was there, I recognize him, even the prosecutor told me he is here. I plead guilty to another lower fine as I have no statement of defense really. After the service cost and victim surcharge, it end up almost the same thing! duh
First time the cops was there when I set a trial....tons of cops there today. holy.

[Impressive]

^ bummer. but at least it's over now and you won't have to spend any more time dealing with the matter.

[SKYMP3]

^ bummer. but at least it's over now and you won't have to spend any more time dealing with the matter.


Yes! Long week-end and holiday started :D

[MarkWB]

My cops was there, I recognize him, even the prosecutor told me he is here. I plead guilty to another lower fine as I have no statement of defense really. After the service cost and victim surcharge, it end up almost the same thing! duh
First time the cops was there when I set a trial....tons of cops there today. holy.

So even though the cop was there, they offered you a lower offence/fine? Who could have predicted that result? :rolleyes:chuckle Congrats on getting things dumped down, shitty that the cop showed up, but lets hope next time you get pulled over the cop makes more mistakes or doesn't show!

[leungalv]

My cops was there, I recognize him, even the prosecutor told me he is here. I plead guilty to another lower fine as I have no statement of defense really. After the service cost and victim surcharge, it end up almost the same thing! duh
First time the cops was there when I set a trial....tons of cops there today. holy.

that's unfortunate ... but it was good experience right? ;) Have fun on your trip.

[pb_blade]

1) The officer contradicted his own evidence by issuing you a ticket for an offense you did not commit. You were doing 25 over, not 15, so you are wrongfully charged. Obviously, this is to be taken with a grain of salt, but the courts don't like cops giving people breaks before court, so you may see the judge throw it out to teach the cop a lesson.

2) He has no evidence, everything is his word against yours. "Pacing" cars is a great procedure, but it's still just words. You could present evidence of/to the contrary that his vehicle was "2 cars behind you" (according to him) yet he claims you were both doing the same speed (95 km/hr).

3) "I" is inappropriate for note taking. He's supposed to use "writer" and by the way, what time did this happen? What day? Because the officers notes don't seem to be tied to this offence by those items...I don't see that anywhere in his notes.

Go to the pros and present these arguments and make it seem like you're considering a trial, you'll get offered a ticket listed just "speeding" or "speeding 5 km/hr over the limit" with no points and probably 90 days to pay your 50 dollar fine.


Ohhhh boy.... where to begin.... I almost think you're trolling at this point. Nothing personal against you, but virtually everything here is WRONG

Going through point by point.....

1) The officer did NOT contradict his evidence at all. It's accepted practice for officers to reduce tickets at the roadside. The courts support this because it encourages people to pay the tickets instead of taking up court time contesting them, this is also why prosecutors are often very willing to offer resolutions rather than take matters to trial. Also on a side note, a JP or justice of the peace normally presides in POA court, not a judge.

2) Yes it is the cop's word against yours, this doesn't diminish its admissibility as evidence. If the courts never accepted verbal testimony as evidence most sexual assault cases would be thrown out since it's only her word against his that she didn't consent.

3) Believe it or not, the officer's notes are NOT the main evidence, his testimony is. He must have an independent recollection of the incident with the notes serving only the refresh his memory of certain details. Officers can use whatever abbreviations they want since as I said, its for the refreshment of their own memory. This "I" vs "writer" stuff is a non-issue there is no law, case-law, regulation that says an officer cannot write his notes in the first person. If an officer's notes is heavily riddled with abbreviations and you can't understand them, you can request that the notes be typed or and/or the abbreviations explained. Also, I'm sure the date/time of the offence IS in the officer's notes, just not on the pages the OP posted up... since there's also no vehicle description, licence plate, or the OP's name/DL number. These parts or pages have likely been cut out by the OP for obvious reasons and likely contain the time/date.

Going to the pros and presenting these arguments will make one look like a complete tool and they'll know you'll get destroyed taking the ticket to trial. Also, there's no such ticket or offence as just "Speeding" and "speeding 5km/hr over the limit" isn't even anywhere near the proper wording for an offence, have you even looked at a speeding ticket? If that was ever written on a ticket it would be tossed immediately and the officer ridiculed. One last point, the fine for 5km/hr over is no where near $50. $52.50 is the total payable for a 15 over charge.

To the OP, prosecutors are virtually always very happy to offer up resolutions/reductions before trial (unless your driving record is so horrendous that they feel it's in the public interest to proceed on the full ticket).

[pb_blade]

Glad things worked out for you in terms of the fine reductions. Just FYI though the reduction at the road side goes out the window when you take it to trial. If convicted, you're convicted of doing the speed given in the officer's evidence, the roadside reduction no longer applies. Look at the roadside reduction as a plea deal we always see on TV in criminal court, the crown offers the accused a lesser charge if they agree to plead guilty. If the accused refuses and takes the matter to trial then loses, they can't turn around and say oh I'll take the deal you offered me earlier.

[MarkWB]

Not sure what courts you work at/go to, but the judge/JP/JOP/man on the big chair (picking at hairs are we?) is obviously very lenient. Anyone who's never seen a cop get shit for his notes being illegible due to over use of abbreviations obviously works with people who have fraudulently obtained law degrees lmao you mean to tell me I can fill my notes on your actions with abbreviations that could mean anything to me only to be typed out in w/e words I then see fit to meet the needs of my explanation? In that case "I sw male go 2 fast 2 furious" is an acceptable way of saying "I spotted male doing 22 km over the limit, looking angry" in the courts you attend.

Nobody said my post had to be taken as literal and biblical testament, I'm not telling him to go up to the prosecution office door/the bench holding my post in his hand and reading off the reasons why the cop didn't do his job correctly, the point behind it is exactly how I finished it, make yourself seem like your a pain in their ass that isn't worth having, and you'll walk with a deal. Like you said, they only really care to prosecute you if your driving record is so bad it'd be in the public interest to ensure your consequences are to the fullest the law extends.

PS: On the topic of "roadside reductions," if said officer "reduced the speed in the ticket" yet had no radar evidence how exactly is the prosecution going to prove he reduced the speed and didn't just note a higher speed to begin with? Refer back to his abbreviated, undated, time free word? Now the cops failure to do his job properly by ensuring his vehicle is equipped sufficiently, and by filling out his notes properly has really made him out to be an ass because the prosecution has to bust their balls at trial trying to argue the possibility the cop lied/was wrong/made a crappy effort and needs to be embarrassed.

My last post on this anyway, obviously OP got his info. Ultimately all the advice in this thread is correct, it's just perspective based...but the consensus of advice anyone reading this will receive on tickets is that you should take any one you receive to court. Whether you're hearing it from someone who was taught that our legal system is something to respect and that it's actually about justice, or from someone who works for private interests and thinks the legal system is a total joke/fail and sees what the former views as "breaks" as "loopholes." It's the right advice, and bottom line, no matter what you do once you've booked a court date, you'll walk out no worse off than you were going in (unless you get held in contempt or take a radar ticket to trial).

Best of luck, and remember, if we all take our tickets to court they'll just have to offer us better deals! :P